What I said on HOBD:
was stunned by the remarks that deputies represent the interests of their dioceses while bishops do not. I think it is often the other way around - the Deputies are courageous in listening to one another and discerning the way forward, they might not get re-elected but they do see the big picture - especially the laity who work in the world. Bishops, on the other hand are very diocesan focussed - and often represent the interests there. They may go to Lambeth but they are also aware of what it means to take a message back home. It is a good balance -but lately there seems to be a concerted effort to cut laity and clergy out of the balance - this speech raises my fears that it is more than just a "feeling" out there.

Re: Council - it is ever thus - the Council and staff - some staff work well, understanding that the Council is the continuing body of General Convention -- others are dismissive and try to run roughshod over our governmental processes.

re: re-thinking -- I get nervous when those with the most power start saying it is not working -- I hear (whether intended or not) it is not working for what those in power want to have happen. I need more reassurance that the voices of the laity and the voices of the deacons and priests are going to be heard in a "new" way of doing governance. I need to hear that we will have a place at the table and not have to subsist on scraps from on high. We may be inconvenient but we are persistent in pursuit of a church that is not top down. The Episcopal Church is a funny mix of hierarchy and democracy --democracy is messy - but having the trains run on time is not our goal.

Jefferts Schori also described "an adversarial attitude between bishops and deputies," saying that bishops' vocation is "their ability to do big-picture work, care for the whole flock" and to invite others into the big-picture, long-term conversation.

You mean like inviting our LGBT sisters and brothers to "stand in a crucified place," Presiding Bishop? And attempting to lead a diocese out of TEC (ala +Lawrence)? And reacting negatively when clergy and lay leaders vote to allow same-sex blessings (ala +Klusmeyer)?

Thanks, +Katharine--but I'm grateful for the deputies who have pushed you and your colleagues to live the Gospel we proclaim. They are largely the ones responsible for dragging TEC to accept "social justice stances" that make the Episcopal Church attractive to those who are drawn to Christ, but who have been put off by the exclusion and bullying they have seen elsewhere.

If that's the governance it takes to get us to open our doors to EVERYONE, I vote for more of it, rather than less.

Paige Baker

A lot of parishes and Dioceses have problems with their leadership. I personally have been blessed all my life to have excellent clergy who have been encouraging of lay involvement and have had the ability to hold a dove—hold it too tight and it dies, hold it too loosely, and it gets away.

I have not been so blessed with regard to my diocesan leadership, which seems to miss opportunities constantly, even when laypeople and clergy are willing and able to jump into the breach, simply because the dioceses and the national church don't get around to addressing the issue until long after the window of opportunity has closed. Either they need to get better at saying "yes," to let laypeople take on ministries that are not necessarily directly within the bailiwick of a particular parish but are necessary diocesan ministries, or they need to get their staff involved in actually jumping on opportunities for mission and evangelism instead of letting them pass. As a layperson, the implicit message is: don't bother.

Finally, I'd say the weakness is in formation and education. This is a big problem, because in the Episcopal Church you have to stand up and take responsibility for yourself: God's gift of faith in him and vocation to do his work is hard to accept in the first place, especially when you don't understand how it works. As the Washington Post reported this weekend, more Episcopalians know that devout Muslims pray five times a day than know that devout Episcopalians pray four times a day. This should be obvious, and it's not. Basics need to be taught.

Build a fire of knowledge and faith within, and encourage it to go out and light the world. It starts with clergy leadership kindling, and not stifling the fire in the laity.

There are a lot of "if"s and "wonder"s in the article so I would urge Cafe to speak directly to the PB so this is news and not conjecture.

Deputies are elected to do what they think best for the Church, not "represent" their Diocesan positions or interests. So we are a republican body not a democratic one, in the sense that we come to represent the republic and not the popular polis of our areas.

It seems to be that the PB the PHoD and the Executive Council are the GC in recess and by golly it sounds like the issue of governance is lack of clarity in that group not in the Deputies or Bishops.

And I am with Ann that it is often the Deputies that push first on major issues. None of our Anglican leaders were particularly "nimble" in quickly condemning the Uganda Gay Death Bill, for example.

But my biggest concern here is that our leaders seem to be chewing on each other rather than articulating mission. Perhaps we need to lock the PB and the PHoD into a room somewhere till the settle their issues, if there be such, rather than having the PB jump on the size of the EC and the role of the Deputies, which requires a defense from our PhoD.

I had instant playback...I remembered a newly elected +KJS seen ernestly chatting on a celphone with the ABC (many say) before unwisely bursting into and addressing the assembled HOD to make a pitch in order to have her own ¨sensible¨ way of upcoming governance...I feel a ¨crucified place coming on.¨ Let´s keep our goveranance and mission ¨choices¨ clear and uncontaminated by anyone who thinks they know best because of ¨what she has heard most everywhere she goes¨ (especially as many of our brothers and sisters in Africa are being tormented and persecuted by despotic bishops of The Global South there ought be a standard of vertical good conscience at TEC).

I have several thoughts as this is a big topic. First, I like the PB challenging us to look at our governance and structures to see how well they are serving the mission of the church in the 21st century. We should always be asking those questions. Maybe the broad shape is fine and the actual practice needs fine tuning, maybe the whole thing needs to be re-thought. To me, there is nothing sacred and eternal in our structures other than all orders of ministry participate in our authority structures.

We are one of the smaller denominations, yet our governing body is (I believe) the 2nd largest gathered governing body after the major political Conventions. Given our dwindling financial resources, the increased cost of maintenance and decreased funding of mission relative to the size of our membership, that surely has to be at least examined and justified if not adjusted.

I disagree that deputies represent their dioceses. They would be delegates and not deputies if that were the case.

At a deeper level, I think there is increasing confusion over the role of the bishop in both the governance and vocation of the church. What is the bishop's teaching role and how is that carried out in our governance?

I see a more assertive House of Deputies, and I'm thankful for that in many ways, but I sometimes wonder if some Deputies and their fans see the Bishops role as yielding to the "senior house" and the democratic voice of the people?

When Deputies override or fail to ratify a HoB action that's often held up as a good thing. When the bishops doe the same, they are often criticized for failing to act or being too conservative.

In my own diocese, I'm hearing calls for the need of an assisting or suffragan bishop and the likelihood that mission funding will be cut to pay for one. I totally agree our bishop and diocese need support, but I haven't really seen a discussion of how a second bishop would strengthen our mission and witness. We just need one because we need one. To me, that's an example of structure defining mission rather than the other way around.

It might be helpful to use this address as an opportunity for real conversation to see what's working and what isn't.

Dirk C. Reinken

I can never figure out what this presiding bishop's talking about.

Maybe our real governance issue is that we need to shorten the PB's term to six years from nine and make them eligible for re-election, in case we get a good one and want to keep 'em.

(I also think the election should be held in the House of Deputies, with ratification in the House of Bishops, not the other way around. There is a difference between what the bishops want in their presider and what the Church needs in a national/international leader.)

I can only comment that +KJS may be (problematically) picking up "Rowan-Speak" (saying something that leaves you scratching your head; i.e., indeciperable).

JC Fisher

"indecipherable" (I swear I had it correctly spelled the first time, then re-wrote it. Argh!)

JC Fisher

I agree with JC Fisher that much of what she's quoted as saying I just can't decode.

The only part that I can get on board with is this: Meanwhile, Jefferts Schori said, there is what she called "a sometimes rather adversarial attitude" in the council that is the result of "confusion about roles." "Sometimes committees try to do the work of staff," she said. "Council sometimes forgets that its job is about policy-making and accountability, and we live with the challenge of having 40 people challenged to make decisions together.

That resonates as true, or possibly true. I would like to see less second guessing of executive decisions. In this view the "Executive Council" is the wrong name. Perhaps it should be the "Executive Oversight Council." It's not the executive, it sets the broad outlines of policy (legislation in between GC's), and holds 815 accountable (annual reviews). It shouldn't be micromanaging even if doesn't like this or that particular execution of its policy.

As far "committees trying to do the work of staff" this sounds like a failure to delineate responsibilities as much as committees purposely encroaching on staff. The standing committees of Council do more than set policy, at least that's my inference from reading mission statements and looking at resolutions of GC.

I'm just wondering what this means in specific and concrete terms. Most people can agree in principle that the church's governance needs reform. I've never seen much agreement about what that means in practice.

Does she have specific CCABs in mind that need to be cut? Are there concrete shifts in funding from committee work to, say, evangelism and church planting?

I'm sure she'll have a clear proposal to make and I'm looking forward to seeing it. Without it, however, this strikes me as vague generalities about wanting "smaller government" but being unwilling to name specific program cuts.

If it's not one thing, it's another in the church. Is the denomination even going to exist in another 10 years with all of the constant bickering?

[Editor's note: thanks for the comment. Please leave your name next time.]

Later in her remarks, Jefferts Schori said "we need a system that is more nimble, that is more able to respond to change," calling for "a more responsive and adaptable and less rigid set of systems."

I laughed out loud at the thought that the Episcopal Church will be more nimble if bishops are given greater power. However, I'm not sure that Bishop Katharine suggests such a thing, as I can't work out what she means in the statement above. With JC Fisher, I wonder if the PB may be taking lessons in ROWANSPEAK.

June Butler

Regarding Josh Thomas' comments above concerning the Presiding Bishop's term of office and the manner of election:

Previous Presiding Bishops, through Edmond Browning, served 12 years. That was thought too long, so it was reduced to 9 years. But the suggestion of six, with a possible reelection is not a bad one. The ELCA follows a similar practice for all bishops, including its PB.

In terms of the house that elects the Presiding Bishop, however, there are important historical and ecclesiastical issues that have led to the current arrangement. In the Episcopal Church the Presiding Bishop technically "presides" over the House of Bishops. As envisioned, he or she does not, however, "preside" over the Episcopal Church. In similar fashion, the President of the House of Deputies "presides" over that body. So, the two are roughly analogous to the President of the Senate (or perhaps the majority leader) and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The two houses and the two leaders are designed to be absolutely equal in church governance. There is no "Executive Branch," as it were. That was, I believe, intentional by the framers of the Episcopal Church's constitution.

To change this system by having the House of Deputies elect the Presiding Bishop is in essence to create an Episcopal Executive (i.e., an archbishop) with more governing authority and less accountability since he/she would be answerable to the whole church, however that's possible which it probably isn't, rather than to the House of Bishops, where his or her power actually resides.

The trouble is that this division of power between the two houses is not well understood across the church (even by the Presiding Bishop herself, it seems). And certainly it doesn't translate well into the Anglican Communion, which in the main relies much more on an archbishop as executive model. But I believe, anyway, that our model, if respected and properly explained and understood is far the better one, even as it may not be as "nimble" as some who would like to have more decision-making power would like.

It is of interest to me that the Presiding Bishop's comment about governance comes at the same time as Executive Council decisions to make major cuts in the national church's communications budget. The failure of our church to communicate effectively about the often remarkable witness made throughout the Episcopal Church and throughout the Communion has a great deal to do with difficulties we periodically find ourselves in. Streamlined governance - even if needed, which may be problematic - is no substitute for a theology of partnership that embraces inclusion and assures that all orders and communities are at the table. I take participatory messiness over organizational efficiency any day.

Leon Spencer